Debunked: Monsanto's Aluminum Resistant GMOs and Chemtrails

SeanDWalker

New Member
That's a good point ^ that it probably wouldn't fall in concentrated amounts, I also thought people saying 'well you never used to see the trails' as evidence - air travel now has 1million people in the air at any given moment....but that in it's self has a increased likely-hood of being too hide things in such a large volume.

one question - how many of you de-bunk because you believe that a lot of what you de-bunk could be possible, or do you do it because the majority of it you think is not possible?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I debunk because I see lots of mistakes. The possibility of something happening or not happening does not affect the mistakes. I think there's lots of corruption in government and finance, but I'll still debunk any mistake I see there.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
That's a good point ^ that it probably wouldn't fall in concentrated amounts, I also thought people saying 'well you never used to see the trails' as evidence - air travel now has 1million people in the air at any given moment....but that in it's self has a increased likely-hood of being too hide things in such a large volume.

one question - how many of you de-bunk because you believe that a lot of what you de-bunk could be possible, or do you do it because the majority of it you think is not possible?

It doesn't make sense to say that air travel would have increased to hide things in a large volume. Air travel has increased because more and more people want to travel and can do so. Nobody forces them to travel, they make a choice to do that themselves.

Whenever someone makes an honest claim, their best friend is a debunker. The debunker looks at the claim using facts which are known, documented, and confirmable, then applies logic and critical thinking to evaluate the claim. If there are errors, the claimant benefits by learning what part was bunk and can re-evaluate the claim and improve it, or dispute the evaluation and debunk what the debunker had to say using other facts and logic. The process is an honest way to get to the truth. The main impediments to the process are a failure to communicate. If sustained public communication of the process is continued, bunk is eliminated and truth is revealed. False claims won't stand up under public scrutiny for very long if the process is sustained.

You might notice that much of this forum contains debunking of claims, yet those being debunked do not participate.

That is a very bad situation, because they could actually make their claims stronger, and we would be proven so wrong, that there would not be no claims left to debunk. When we try to sustain communication with the main claimants, they refuse to participate. For some reason or another, they fail to improve their claims, and usually this leads to even more false conclusions based on claims which were already debunked.

Usually, this is a result of fundamental dishonesty on the part of the claimant. I know that I have personally had personal communication with most of the leaders of the chemtrails conscious activist movement by email and telephone. I have asked them for a chance to engage in both written and verbal public debates. We do speak to each other. They know that they are in error, because I told them where, how, and why, and they visit here on a daily basis to see what we have to say, yet they are not responsive in any way as you can see.

They are the losers, and the folks who follow what they claim are even greater losers. Eventually, you will venture out into the public arena and have to face the exact same questions which have been posed here. This will happen, all of you who try have already experienced that. It cannot be avoided if you want to publicize your cause.

There is no reason to be angry at debunkers because your leaders have "set you up" by avoiding the process, and that has been a detriment to you. It is up to you to correct this situation, since they will not. You have the opportunity to apply our methods yourselves. Ask them about what you read here, apply the facts and logic we have, and see how they respond. If their response is not adequate, you can assume, as we have, that they are not really interested in the truth. You might also consider asking them to respond here directly, to expedite the process. If they are truly honest, they will do so.

To directly answer your above question, Sean, I debunk because I love the process of learning that it entails, it satifies my curiosity and I truly want to find out the truth of the matter, no matter where it leads. While I do take a position, if both sides engage, everyone will be satisfied and the public, who will eventually decide anyways, will be the winner.
 

SeanDWalker

New Member
"It doesn't make sense to say that air travel would have increased to hide things in a large volume. Air travel has increased because more and more people want to travel and can do so. Nobody forces them to travel, they make a choice to do that themselves."

Not saying it increased BECAUSE of the need to hide what happens in the air - just that it's now easier than before to hide something suspicious e.g. chemtrails whilst in the air due to the huge volume of traffic. Not that one caused the other :).
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Not saying it increased BECAUSE of the need to hide what happens in the air - just that it's now easier than before to hide something suspicious e.g. chemtrails whilst in the air due to the huge volume of traffic. Not that one caused the other :).

Actually, though at first, from a perspective on the ground this may seem to be so, it may not be. Think of it this way, a single car headed down a lonely road might be easy to spot, yes. A vehicle in traffic alongside others might seem at first to blend in with the rest so as not to be so noticeable.

However, in the sky, aircraft are nearly as far apart from each other as cars on a lonely road. The pilots of ordinary airliners and cargo jets have to avoid collisions. They are not simply cars driving down a lane. They are responsible for maintaining separation from other aircraft on both a horizontal and a vertical plane as well as avoiding overtaking and following traffic. They do this by visual and remote sensing observations using the aircraft's TCAS system, as described HERE.

Pilots also have radio communication with other planes, of course.
Air traffic is also monitored by multiple Air Traffic Control centers who hand off traffic to each other as a flight passes from one area to the next.

So, in a sense, the more traffic there is in the sky, the more chances are that a particular flight will be in contact with another, be sensed by another flight, and certainly will be sensed by air traffic control.

Take, for instance, the airspace over Mt. Shasta,CA, where it is falsely claimed by Francis Mangels of "What In The World Are They Spraying" that only four flights/day are normal, and that over 100 planes fly over spraying on some days LINK HERE.

Here is a view of one day's ordinary air traffic over Mt. Shasta:
13February2012-100%20miles.jpg

Mind you, these are 113 ordinary scheduled passenger flights, carrying thousands of people. The pilots flying this route do so day after day, sometimes for years.

Now, how could anyone expect to fly an extra hundred or more "sprayers" through the same airspace and not get noticed?

Such a claim isn't even plausible, period.

The bottom line here is that these claims of sprayers are simply the ordinary jet airline traffic making ordinary contrails.
There are several pilots and at least one air traffic controller posting regularly on this forum, I'm sure they will chime in.
Hope that answers your question, Sean. If not, tell me what else you need to know.
Certainly you won't find this sort of info at any chemtrails website, will you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U

Unregistered

Guest
On the video mentioned in this thread you will see college professors admitting and condone spraying 10 mega tons of nano aluminium particles might stop global warming. One fun quote was we will "freeride on our grandkids" before figuring if its safe. Admin. you are a tool for the earthers who think we need to save the ice caps. These are Obamas beliefs so why wouldn't we be doing this. also see WeatherModification.com for more obvious ideas about the world we are living in. Wake Up
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They "admit and condone" nothing. They were simply discussing a theoretical way of doing geoengineering.

You can see an explanation of the "free-riding" quote here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/16...ing-is-like-free-riding-on-our-Grandkids-quot

And why wouldn't we want to save the ice caps? You know if the southern one melts then sea levels will rise enough to flood New York, and most of Florida (and the homes of about a billion people around the world). That seems like something we'd like to avoid.
 
Last edited:

Smart201

New Member
There's only one truth her, Monsanto owns the government, Monsanto are guilty
Of killing people on mass.

Problem

Monstanto. (let's make up a bullshit story about global warming)

Reaction

The people (something must be done)

Solution

Monsanto (gioengineering amongest other things will save the planet)


If you look at the lies this company have told in the past, then it becomes evident that
money and control takes first place in there agenda ,even if it means killing all life on this planet.

Is this company capable of conducting a worldwide chemtrail exercise You better believe it!
Would they do it, you better believe it!
And are they doing it, you better believe it!
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Maybe some links to your claims would be better Smart101.
Maybe start with the claim "Monsanto are guilty
Of killing people on mass."

Then again, your claim that "money and control takes first place in there agenda ,even if it means killing all life on this planet." would lead to them going out of business as there would be no one to control or get money from.
 

Smart201

New Member
Lets rephrase the question Monsanto doesn't own the government it is the government!
And why not about them fabricating the global warming story, what a another good way to make a buck by lieing to the people. Something I might add they seem to excel at, o that and killing them!
And as for the comment on proof you gotta ask yourself millions of people around the world believe in god based on faith,
Dont you think the time has come to cut the shit and have a little in each other before its past the point of no return on matters such as this.. And we're kicking ourselfs saying, why didn't we do something about this!

Either that or you would rather take the word of the Rockefellers and rothchilds ?
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
I thought it was the Military Industrial Complex (or was it the Banks or the Illuminati?) that controlled the Government?
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Still waiting for some evidence that they are killing en mass. I would have expected to hear something about the masses dying.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Excuse me sir, I hate to jump in unannounced and Im sure you will have all kinds of things to say about my comment but here it goes. I am not by any means as intelligent as some being that I have never received a degree from any institution but Im not an idiot. I will only say what I have seen and I have seen plenty due to the fact that I am a truck driver. That being said, debunk this then Mr. I witnessed on several occasions 2 jumbo jets flying almost side by side spraying thick lines of something from them both moving east. And two more jets moving south in the same manner criss crossing each other, obviously two were at a higher altitude. I know for a fact, as I work at and around, Ohare airport, that jets do not fly in that manner. I have seen this occur on more than one occasion with my own two eyes. I am no fool. You can sit there and tell me until you are blue in the face that its normal when it definitely is not. If you cannot see with your own two eyes what is happening, then I feel sorry for you because your obvious intelligence has muddled your senses. So debunk away. Tell me its normal for jets to fly in unison over large cities and airports. Im quite sure it isnt.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's nothing to stop it happening. They were probably just on a similar route and separated vertically by 1000 feet or more. Just coincidence, but one that's bound to happen from time to time.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Excuse me sir, I hate to jump in unannounced and Im sure you will have all kinds of things to say about my comment but here it goes. I am not by any means as intelligent as some being that I have never received a degree from any institution but Im not an idiot. I will only say what I have seen and I have seen plenty due to the fact that I am a truck driver. That being said, debunk this then Mr. I witnessed on several occasions 2 jumbo jets flying almost side by side spraying thick lines of something from them both moving east. And two more jets moving south in the same manner criss crossing each other, obviously two were at a higher altitude. I know for a fact, as I work at and around, Ohare airport, that jets do not fly in that manner. I have seen this occur on more than one occasion with my own two eyes. I am no fool. You can sit there and tell me until you are blue in the face that its normal when it definitely is not. If you cannot see with your own two eyes what is happening, then I feel sorry for you because your obvious intelligence has muddled your senses. So debunk away. Tell me its normal for jets to fly in unison over large cities and airports. Im quite sure it isnt.

Funny that you work at and around O'Hare yet are unaware that it's one of several large airports with parallel runways that allow for simultaneous takeoffs and landings. In fact, I believe O'Hare has 3 parallel runways with plans to expand to a total of 6. Seeing jets flying side by side should be a fairly common occurrence around O'Hare.

Here's a video of 2 jet airliners landing at Chicago's Ohare Intl airport side by side.

Here's a tech paper on a Parallel Runway Monitor.

Here's a discussion on an aviation forum about which airports have 3 or more parallel runways.

Some videos of planes overtaking other planes and/or otherwise flying nearly side by side at cruising altitude where contrails are likely to be produced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUVDNT1hdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkjncB-DNZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QMTyJ-Vd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqdp0fefSHU

There are plenty more examples of commercial airliners flying side by side as a normal course of operating in airspace occupied by thousands of planes in the air at any given time.

And try not to be so smug next time, it makes you look twice as foolish when you get debunked...just sayin'. ;)
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
the real reason for chemtrails:

agent orange, the eugenics program, tuskegee syphilis experiments, the pellagra incident, project f, lsd experiments on civilians and cia personel, mkultra, and on and on and on... they're probably not trying to destroy their only habital planet but i think they are surely trying to own it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Goerge Santayana

I can certainly agree with that.

So - if there's tiny metal flakes in the fuel then:

A) How do the engines keep working?
B) Why is there a gap between the engine and the trail?
C) Why has nobody ever found these flakes?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
A) we've been to space and back, they can probably create an engine to handle the microscopic particles.
B) don't know
c)if you mean on the ground you said it yourself it's everywhere and as for nobody finding it in the fuel or air, nobody knew of the other experiments the cia and our gov. did on our citizens and military personel until decades later when either congress demands discloser of classified documents or a whistle blower speaks out on their death bed.


excerpt from Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather by 2025

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I suggest B is pretty strong evidence that it's not being done. The particles would be visible. If you ask an airline mechanic then you'd find that A is pretty strong evidence against it.

So what's the evidence for?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Hi MikeR, I understand you were eager to reply, but if you read the rest of the post it explain why adding aluminum to the soil makes zero difference, as it's the acidity of the soil that is the problem.

your an idiot dude.....just look up....thats all u have to do....X's everywhere......and why such high levels of aluminum in rain water?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
A) we've been to space and back, they can probably create an engine to handle the microscopic particles.

They've outfitted all of civil aviation with these engines? (the vast majority of contrails, chemtrails to the believers, are produced by passenger and cargo jets).

B) don't know

It is because the trail is made of water vapor condensing and freezing. That only happens some distance aft of the engine when the exhause cools enough for it to happen. If the trails were some kind of opaque spray they'd be visible immediately. Furthermore, if the trails were what you say they are, the trails should be visible under all weather conditions. As it is, the temperature and humidity dictate the formation of the trails which indicates that they are ice.

c)if you mean on the ground you said it yourself it's everywhere and as for nobody finding it in the fuel or air,

Tests of soil and rain have not shown an increase in these metals. If it is everywhere there should be a universal signal. Should be really easy to find in the air but none of the chem-promoters has dared to go test properly.

As mentioned above, UAVs could be used to deliver and distribute these smart materials."

All of the supposed chemtrails here in Florida are from commercial air traffic (almost all, there is some military traffic too).
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
As for the topic of the thread, I always remind these kids that crop purity needs to be maintained.
Put simply, each year your crops cross pollinate with local vegetation and strains. This 'dilutes' the benefits that the GM seeds were developed for (and bought by the farmer for) in the first place. Farmers don't just like to keep yields up, but yields of the highest quality crop possible for their local environment.
 
O

open eyes

Guest
What is your reason for trying to debunk? I know what I see in my skies...and bottom line, if you consume corn or soy products in the United States you ARE putting Round-up in your body. I live near a military base with planes flying all day and night every day and when you start to pay attention you just see the difference. I have seen two of the same planes at the same altitude (assuming so because they were flying together) one showing zero contrail and one 100% chemtrail. I have also watched one plane on numerous occasions make an entire grid pattern in the sky by starting and cutting the trail instantaneously. You preach what you want but I will keep an open mind and open eyes.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I have seen two of the same planes at the same altitude (assuming so because they were flying together) one showing zero contrail and one 100% chemtrail. I have also watched one plane on numerous occasions make an entire grid pattern in the sky by starting and cutting the trail instantaneously. You preach what you want but I will keep an open mind and open eyes.

If you truly have an open mind then you should review these facts without hesitation:

2 planes- same altitude- different contrails:

http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

Starting and stopping of trails:

http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/


Since we know contrails can and often do persist and spread, you cannot say for certain a trail you see do that is "100% chemtrail" without actually sampling the trail in question.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.

i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.

i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.

Is there something specific you think is wrong? Can you quote it, and say why it is wrong, or suspect?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.

i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.

It's used because it's probably the only website specifically devoted to the issue, it has a really large collection of information on pretty much every chemtrailer concern, with backable facts, and if anyone is able to point out any wrong information they are welcomed to do so.

It's a good-quality resource, it's info is 'locked in place' by an understanding of basic physics, meteorology, airplane industry practices and the scientific method in general.

What is true now on that site is likely to stay so for ever, unless something messes with the basic cause and effect of the universe.
If chemtrails were proven and admitted tomorrow, the examined evidence on that site would still stand as being just contrails.
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
"i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources"

Pity that you do not ask the same about the "evidence" from chemtrail proponents.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
For some reason I find it's always true that in the very "evidence" they present is the rebuttal. Sometimes staring you in the face, sometimes subtler, but always there... LOL

Whoops. I thought I was responding to Jay's coy carps...

Well, since I'm here, Danny55, you could try my site. Not as accurately-directed as this wonderful site, but has some of the history, not so much of the start of CTs, but of the preceding periods of aviation and warfare, that led to today's misconceptions.

http://jazzroc.wordpress.com
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.

i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.

Is there any type or level of credential which somebody who disagrees with you could hold that would mean you'd accept their opinion as credible?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.

i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.

If you can be specific about your request, I'm sure we can oblige. Just cite the information for which you would like the documentation and in most cases we can provide you with multiple independent sources. We'd like to improve our presentation and be responsive to criticism. Doing so makes our arguments stronger.

The chemtrail believer side doesn't do so, almost as a rule they ignore criticism and continue to repeat the same old misinformed claims. For instance, just google chemtrails and ethylene dibromide and you will find the original hoax by Larry Wayne Harris and Richard Finke being still repeated. For fifteen years this has been shown false, yet the claim still gets circulated. That doesn't make their message stronger, it makes it weaker. Same with the Mt. Shasta tests, already shown false, and that false premise was repeated by Michael J. Murphy as recently as last week. He knows it is false, and repeats the falsehood. Repeating misinformation as a leader is the worst thing he can do for the movement and will destroy his position in the long run.

So come on back unregistered and be specific. You will find satisfaction here that you won't elsewhere. Guaranteed.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I read many posts in this thread. You keep saying that "soil is 8%" aluminum. So what you're really saying is that soil is 8 parts per hundred aluminum... Where did you get this info? Also, how do you acidify soil for azaleas, hydrangeas, etc? Add aluminum sulfate. So MAYBE this aluminum that is sprayed in the sky causes acidic compounds in the rain, which would in turn acidify the soil.
Cheers
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I read many posts in this thread. You keep saying that "soil is 8%" aluminum. So what you're really saying is that soil is 8 parts per hundred aluminum... Where did you get this info? Also, how do you acidify soil for azaleas, hydrangeas, etc? Add aluminum sulfate. So MAYBE this aluminum that is sprayed in the sky causes acidic compounds in the rain, which would in turn acidify the soil.
Cheers

Yes, 8 parts per hundred aluminum, although that's usually the figure given for the earth's crust as a whole, soil is more like 7% to 8%, and that's just an average, there are numerous sources of this figure, for example, the US Geological Survey publication: "Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States", 1984:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1270/pdf/PP1270_508.pdf


That's just an average, it's interesting how it varies across the country, much of North CA, and the PNW is actually above 10%, whereas Florida is generally under 0.5%
 
Last edited:

solrey

Senior Member.
I read many posts in this thread. You keep saying that "soil is 8%" aluminum. So what you're really saying is that soil is 8 parts per hundred aluminum... Where did you get this info? Also, how do you acidify soil for azaleas, hydrangeas, etc? Add aluminum sulfate. So MAYBE this aluminum that is sprayed in the sky causes acidic compounds in the rain, which would in turn acidify the soil.
Cheers

Sorry, you've been mis-informed. I'm an avid gardener, sulfur is what's used to acidify soil. It's the sulfur (sulfate) in aluminum sulfate that lowers soil pH.

To safely acidify soil where you already have plants applying elemental sulfur is the best way. Sulfur is very slow acting (it may take as long as 3-4 months to be effective). Applied at recommended rates, it’s safe for your plants. Iron sulfate is good, too.

Acidifying soil

Iron sulfate is OK because a lot of plants like iron and it's faster acting on lowering soil pH. I prefer more organic materials like coffee grounds and pine needles. However aluminum sulfate is only used on hydrangeas specifically for aluminum to make the flowers blue, and since they're also an acid loving plant and the sulfur lowers soil pH they like that too. The aluminum in aluminum sulfate is harmful to most plants so it's only used for specific applications like making hydrangeas blue.

To obtain a blue hydrangea, aluminum must be present in the soil. To ensure that aluminum is present, aluminum sulfate may be added to the soil around the hydrangeas.

http://www.hydrangeashydrangeas.com/colorchange.html

Not so for azaleas however. In fact, The Horticulture and Crop Science department at Ohio State University's fact sheet on growing azaleas and rhododendrons implicitly emphasizes (3rd paragraph under soil preparation):

Do not use aluminum sulfate to acidify the soil as the aluminum residue may be harmful to the plants.

What makes you think that there's unaccounted for acidity in either rain or soil anyway? I mean, makes me wonder what else you've been mis-informed about.

cheers
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
deirdre Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants Health and Quackery 5
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection) Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977 Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Leifer Debunked: Monsanto canteens (cafeterias) serve non-GMO foods Conspiracy Theories 7
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top